Tuesday, 1 November 2011

One Nation

The times are certainly a-changing, perhaps more rapidly than at any time I can recall. Take the rewards of the most senior figures in our society, the Supreme Court judges, Generals, university Vice Chancellors. They can expect a working life in which the 'relativities' are maintained with a chauffeured car and a domestic servant as part of the job and in retirement no-one is much surprised to find them in a spoof-Lutyens house in Hampshire of the kind that requires a ride-on lawnmower. Fair enough. Yet these people were the 'Establishment', the privileged elite, the ruling class, against whom we protested in the 1970s through music and satire. Now their rewards - and status - are as nothing compared to those that head and manage the transnational corporates; they are as far below an investment banker in income terms as an unemployed teen is below a GP. 


And this is what's happened since the 1970s; a new class of the global super-rich has grown almost without notice, and with them a top-tier of earners in the City and global finance, and the CEOs, skimming the cream off the assets they manage for anyone in a pension fund or with investments. The fact that it's not their money that enables some 140 corporates to control 60% of invested wealth is an irrelevance - it's the fact that global corporates act solely for their own ends that matters. The nurses and teachers whose pension funds they manage (rapaciously) don't share in any increased quality of life, don't even get a sniff of the wealth and privilege that those who invest 20% of their earnings enjoy. 


As Mary Riddell comments in the Telegraph, for the first time both main parties have picked up the zeitgeist.  There is a national recognition that these rewards are too great, the differentials too wide, that these folk have piled wealth upon wealth for themselves just because they can. Though the MSM tags the 'occupy' protests as anti-capitalist they're not; they're anti-corporatist. And if they're against globalisation they're not protectionist; they oppose the way in which international capital can dodge and evade national regulation, not the idea of 'a fair go' for any nation in the global marketplace. Above all they're a reminder that 'One Nation' finds a deep resonance in the English soul.  

9 comments:

JuliaM said...

" Though the MSM tags the 'occupy' protests as anti-capitalist they're not; they're anti-corporatist."

You're assuming a coherent, cohesive gameplan where there is none.

Greg Tingey said...

And may include greedy arrogant bastards like Alan Joyce of QUANTAS in this set.
Complaining about the unions, whilst getting a 71% pay-rise.
Erm, err .....

tomsmith said...

"The fact that it's not their money that enables some 140 corporates to control 60% of invested wealth is an irrelevance - it's the fact that global corporates act solely for their own ends that matters"

It isn't an irrelevance at all. It means that the investors whose money it is wish for it to be invested in this way and for those managing it to be paid in this way. That is their choice, since it is their money. If you don't like it then do not invest your money with these organisations.

Elby the Beserk said...

"Though the MSM tags the 'occupy' protests as anti-capitalist they're not; they're anti-corporatist."

I'm not so sure that the protesters understand that. In which case...

Nick Drew said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nick Drew said...

who knows what they are about, I assume a good number are just malcontents

rather obviously I am not anti-capitalist (!) but I would cheerfully join in a protest against looter-banksterism, and have long advocated criminal prosecutions in respect of (e.g.) RBS

the malaise (IMO) is the 'system', or 'recent custom & practice' that allows salaried corporate employees to reward themselves as though they were successful entrepreneurs

(anyone will do so if allowed: MPs and trade unionists are no different, given the chance, as we well know: the key is that the system should not allow it)

this is nothing whatever to do with capitalism - indeed it is an abomination to true capitalists - and I'm not sure if it is really corporatism either

Anonymous said...

Greg Tingey: "Complaining about the unions, whilst getting a 71% pay-rise."

Derek Simpson - Unite
£97,027 + 'Housing benefit' of £38,340 + £24,480 for his chauffeur.

Bob Crow - Rail Maritime Transport union. £91,646

Billy Hayes - Communication workers Union £88,438


No, the Unions seem to be doing very well for themselves, thank you.

Their members ... erm, err ..... they are a different matter.

Gregs' Parrot said...

Greg Tingey - wot, no mention of that b@tch fatcher??? Yer goin soft lad.

Anonymous said...

An awful lot of the population are wildly overpaid if you judge by results.
Just as well the government takes a good chunk of their money from them.
Else they would indulge in something.